A Word on Techniques
   Each Technique is a category of weaponry which falls under the domain of the Skill in question.  Having any such Technique indicates that the character has a strong familiarity with that class of weapon.  Now, the official ruling of the Combat book is that wielding a weapon without the proper Technique (ie. swinging a broadsword when one lacks the Blades technique) adds a +1 penalty to the difficulty to hit.  To me, it didn't make sense that people who knew Melee yet lacked a certain Technique were no better at wielding that type of weapon than people who didn't have Melee at all; the +1 difficulty penalty would apply to both of them, one for lacking the Skill and the other for lacking the Technique.  The same would hold true of Firearms and Heavy Weapons.  This would also lend an advantage to armed Abilities such as Archery or Energy Weapons, which don't break their weapons down into Techniques whether due to lack of breadth or similarity in function among those weapons.

    To remedy this apparently flawed rule, I've replaced it with the house rule that instead, having a Technique will grant the combatant a -1 bonus to the to-hit difficulty and possibly other bonuses as well.  This rule suggests that the character with that Technique is an expert with that type of weapon; a fencing instructor would possess the Blades technique, whereas a warrior familiar with other type of weapons--yet a stranger to the Blades Technique--would still be able to apply small facets of his experience and thus wield swords and knives more ably than some work-a-day scrub who had never picked up a weapon in his life.
to Combat: The Main Page